In Conflict

If emotion had color, the stage would’ve looked like a rainbow throughout the show; the audience would’ve been a sea of all different hues. Director Douglas Wager turns Yvonne Latty’s book of inteviews with Iraq War vets into something that truly touches the heart.

The on stage production does not vary from its textual counterpart, but Wager throws in some tidbits of what I would like to call, war movie scenes. March! Salute! Wheel the armchair around the stage! These were fine additions to a even finer story. Latty finds and interviews members of the National Guard, the Navy, and the Army; each member speak of their experiences over on the other side of the Atlantic. Most suffer from postwar trauma. The actors on stage protray each and every soldier with flawless ability, from facial expressions to tone of voice. The details, things like “chopping the legs off” of wheelchair bound soldiers, and the movie clips meant to support the stage play invigorate and highlight the pangs of the story being told. The story in itself is not Disney material – there is no happily ever after ending. The interviewees elaborate on the stories we read or hear about how soldiers lose their limbs, their lives, and even their souls over in Iraq.

The night I was there, in a talkback offered at the end of the play, Yvonne mentioned how she tried to keep balance in the book in terms of how each soldier felt about the war. Am I pro-Iraq? Was I pro-Iraq? Very intimate questions in the time of war, especially for the soldiers. Despite this effort, the play comes off very strongly as anti-war. The things you see and hear on stage have no choice but to rob you of all your support for the war (assuming you had some to start with) – the baby crushed by a squad of tanks makes it so.

A war veteran smiled about her patriotism while paralyzed from losing her limbs, another war veteran traumatized by the killing of innocence, and another left in agony from losing his older brother during the war. I was among the many who watched the play In Conflict and was deeply touched by the ruthlessness of war. Opened at the Barrow street theatre, In conflict, was a series of interviews of war veterans expressing their views on war and their adjustments after exiting the war. Adapted from the book by Yvonne Latty, In conflict captured its audience with ambivalent feeling of bitterness and appreciation for soldiers whose life were in turmoil after the war.

To my disbelief all the cast members were students from Temple University instead of professional actors. I think that was why the play succeeded. The students, with their acting techniques not yet polished, introduced originality to the play because they were inexperienced, so were the soldiers, unprepared about their life after they come back home realizing that war wasn’t what they expected. Suyeon Kim recreated her role as Tammy Duckworth, who lost her limbs yet remained hopeful. It was her cheerful manner throughout her conversation that broke the stereotypical notion of injured war veterans feeling ostracized.

Yvonne Latty’s appearances through the television screen would have been much more compelling if her role as an interviewer could be acted. It was difficult for me to shift my attention to the screen as well as for audiences from the back while watching the play since the most important aspect of watching a play is to see it in action. The unnecessary addition of the screen not only took away the closeness between the interviewer and the war veterans but also suggested that the interviewer was superior to the war veterans.

Though I find the television screen as extremely inconvenient, the lighting was magnificent and the transitions between the sets were eccentric; the spinning of plastic walls and soldiers running around the stage dressed in heavy combat armors and AK47 as if they were under attack. The talkback after the play with Ty Simmons, a Vietnam war veteran, and Yvonne Latty was definitely worth the time and effort because they did not only answer the audience questions, they also gave examples from their personal experience.

The Voices of Iraq Veterans

In Conflict is a play that gives voice to the stories of tragedy and triumph experienced by seventeen Iraq War veterans. They are the men and women from all over the country, of different backgrounds, various ranks, and different sexual orientations. These are the people that represent America. When I went to the play, I didn’t think I would be too interested since I thought I knew what war was like, from the action thrillers that get the top spots in box offices all across the world, and all the books that mention war.  I did not expect to be so moved by these real life stories of young men and women like me.  I also did not expect these stories to make me laugh or make me so sad.
Throughout the play, the concept of being “army strong” was accentuated. A lot of the soldiers that went to fight in the war did not know why they went to fight, they just did as they were told. Many of them had their own reasons for going to fight the war, some did it because they believed in America, they wanted to serve their country, and some wanted the free education that the army provides. They were told that they needed to fight so that the enemy wouldn’t come into their homes and take away their property, but as one soldier pointed out, “it was exactly what we were doing to them.”
Many soldiers lost their limbs, some lost all, but the most painful loss experienced by these soldiers was the loss of their soul. One soldier witnessed how a baby was driven over by a convoy of military vehicles over and over, after its mother was shot.  When he came back home, he became an alcoholic, a detrimental inclination many war veterans obtain. He says he drinks to keep the voices out of his head, and while he expected to be treated like a hero, but is treated “like a zero.”
The scenic design was not very shrewd; it had only two walls of which one side was a faded American flag, and the other a map. But then again, this may be so to add to the atmosphere of being in the army, there is not much to it. The soldiers perform their everyday things, and follow orders.  They are doing all of it for America, and the American flag. Other props included chairs, wheelchairs, desks, and bit of a treat, cookies (although I’m not sure if it was intended for us to eat.)
Another aspect of the play I did not quite enjoy was the fact that there were seventeen stories re-told and some of them seemed the same, partly because they were acted out by the same actors. Some of the stories, although interesting, sounded a bit too similar.  I got the overall feeling that the play was anti-war, although as I gathered from the talk back, it was intended to be neutral.
I enjoyed the play, and the way the actors fit into their roles and told their stories. I think a few things could have been changed, but it made me realize just what war is like. It is not what people think of it, certain moments of it can be fun, but at the same time very dangerous. You never know what kind of changed person you will come back as, or if you will even come back at all.

The concept of war is one that transcends time. Conflict in one form or another is a part of human nature and war has been around throughout the whole of human history. Soldiers are, more often than not, the ones who have to pay the price of war. This point was very clearly made in the play, In Conflict. As the audience hears the words of soldiers who have recently returned from the conflict in Iraq, it becomes abundantly clear that the war has left them both physically and emotionally scarred. It is truly sobering to hear the toll that war takes upon those who have to wage it.

The play is constructed in a way that lets the audience appreciate the individual stories separate from each other, but at the same time they each add to the growing message of the play. In Conflict is told by performers acting out the individual interviews of the real soldiers with Yvonne Latty, who originally put this work together. Each soldier told Ms. Latty how he or she felt about returning from Iraq and the effect that it had upon them. Due to how unpopular the war in Iraq has been, this performance could have easily turned into an anti-war rant, however Ms. Latty kept the interviews fair and the views expressed ran the gamut of possible feelings. There were soldiers who felt proud of the war and those who didn’t but the important thing was not their opinions but the fact that they had the chance to tell them. There was indeed an underlying theme throughout the play that the war did have some effect upon the soldiers in one way or another. There were soldiers who had lost limbs and others who had lost something worse, their minds. We hear stories about the horrors of war and the personal experiences that have scarred many of the soldiers for life. The ingenious set design with rotating maps of Iraq and Uncle Sam’s image as well as the television screens showing interviews with Yvonne Latty herself, supplemented this powerful message. The sound effects and lighting added drama and an ominous undertone to the entire performance.            

In Conflict is a performance that can appeal to all Americans. It is not necessarily anti-war or pro-war it simply tells the stories of the soldiers and reminds the audience what a terrible price the soldiers who fight in wars pay. Wars are a part of human nature but those on the front lines are the ones who become physically and mentally damaged. The point of this play is to tell the stories of a select few soldiers and to provide a glimpse into the life of someone who returns home from a war zone. The last interview of the performance that truly sums it up, is from a man named Ty Simmons who states that the troops are true heroes and need to be supported no matter what. This message is one that every American should hear. We need to never forget that while war is certainly a grim reality and even a necessity in this day and age, that it is the soldiers on the front lines who bear the brunt of armed conflict. They are the ones who defend American freedoms and they willingly risk life and limb for this cause. They have earned the support of the American people regardless of opinions regarding the war. 

When it was decided that Yvonne Latty’s In Conflict: Iraq War Veterans Speak Out on Duty, Loss and the Fight to Stay Alive would be adapted into a play, the director should have paid particular attention to the format of the work that, while built upon socially responsible subject matter, is of a very unique nature and difficult to interpret in theater. Unfortunately, director Douglas C. Wager fails to do just that, not realizing that a play with narrative can have an audience but a play with interviews needs to have listeners.
Cultureproject’s In Conflict is a play consisting of a collection of interviews from Yvonne Latty’s book of the same name. The format consists of a series of Iraqi war veterans’ interviews, each supplemented by video footage of both the background of the veteran being portrayed on stage and Latty describing her experience with the interview. So, given what the play is portraying, the focus should be on trying to convince the audience that the actor is speaking directly to them, a task the production fails in accomplishing.
The entire work is dependent on the performances themselves because, given the format, there is no narrative to fall back on, something not understood by the producers, who take the performance like any other play and don’t try to change the audience’s role. They treat the audience as a passive personality, not realizing that an interview, unless conducted by someone, is not an interview. A narrative, on the other hand, can exist on its own without any input from the outside. Since this external input, or this presence of a listener, isn’t acknowledged, the interviews fail in being just that. The only anomaly here is Stan Demidoff’s performance that, by breaking the fourth wall through directly addressing the audience and handing out cookies, truly gives the feeling of a one-on-one interview. The rest of the performances, while equally well acted, serve as performances and not interviews.
Other problems also plague the production. Since the dialogue here is taken from common people and not expert playwrights, it lacks articulation and, while one can appreciate the pains of the experience, the writing isn’t strong enough to mirror that grief. Realizing this, the delivery is exaggerated to try and evoke the same empathy as a live interview and such exaggeration, while appropriate in theater, overly dramatizes the interviews, making them seem concocted and taking away any immersion.
As for technical issues, there are no memorable set pieces, no impressive aesthetic effects and no memorable sound design. Costumes are adequate but standard and, thus, forgettable. The theater itself is a faulty choice, allowing the rumble from the street above onto the stage.
Ultimately, In Conflict fails to realize that, when the audience is a part of the story, it needs to be directly acknowledged. The fourth wall should have been broken more often because a narrative is still a complete story, possible without an audience. An interview, however, needs a listener in order to be conducted.

in-conflict-production-photos-0384

            “Soldiers are not politicians, ”Ty Simmons asserts in Yvonne Latty’s book “In Conflict”, now adapted into a thought provoking Culture Project production. Our main military man was one of the many veterans whose tortured stories were heart wrenchingly revealed on the small stage at the Barrow Street theatre.

            Revealed would be the word because the open-minded cast and directors of the show managed to create both an expository play about a war that is very simple to bash. It would have been far easier for Culture Project or even Yvonne Latty to compile the memoirs of bitter and disgruntled opponents of the war but they didn’t and their lack of narrow-mindedness made this production all the more credible.

             As the title states, all the characters are tragically “In Conflict” in every sense of the phrase.  The invigorating young cast, most of who are Temple University alumni demand attention with their youth and admittedly through their relative inexperience to most actors. They are the age of most returning Iraq War veterans who are replete with angst, patriotism and just as conflicted.

            “I joined the army because I didn’t have the means to get into college,” Darryl Anderson bluntly admits as he paced restlessly on the stage. Red, white and blue lights highlighting casting shadows on his face.  A swirling bundle of nerves, guilt and emotional upheaval that are as luminous as his face as he admits that he went AWOL. Like many of his fellow veterans he could not support the gruesome finality of killing people. Yet that is in essence war. His inability to reconcile his desire to see others live and to follow orders is echoed in all the accounts of all those young dudes, an women who are now veterans. He and they are not politicians and there are no answers, yet.

            That is what the Culture Project has managed to capture and convey so successfully, there are no answers. At least not yet anyway because the public is no one is united or informed enough. Yet, honest plays like this certainly alleviate that fact. It is impossible to fairly judge a war now, or any war for that manner when it isn’t even over yet and according to the quintessential military man Ty Simmons, it won’t be. For now, our country, the brilliant actors of “In Conflict” and their self tortured counterparts will continue to “bleed red, white and blue”, touching audiences from any mindset.

www.inconflicttheplay.com

             An American flag on one side and a map of Iraq on the other – three large tablets occupy the middle of the stage. Each tablet depicting a different portion of the image and spinning independently of the others – forcefully turned by the troubled characters, whose lives have spun just as much as those three central tablets. “In Conflict”, a new production by Douglas C. Wager, chronicles the individual stories of the magnificent characters that constitute the diverse group of Iraqi war veterans upon whom the play centers.

            Like the veterans whose stories are told in the play, the actors of “In Conflict” dominate the stage. They are a group of students and recent graduates from Temple University whose inexperience is unperceivable in their performances. Their dramatic and emotional accounts of the experiences of the Iraqi war veterans are examples of pure mastery. Although the hard work that they put into perfecting their portrayal of the characters is seen in the careful execution of their roles, the resulting performance seems neither forced nor overly prepared – it is simply a beautiful collection of the many accounts of Iraqi war veterans.

            The excessive use of props in this play is an extremely surprising element of the performance. Although all performances use sets and props to better tell their story, the simplicity of the set of “In Conflict” – composed of only three large tablets – emphasizes the use of various props throughout the play. The constant changing of these props adds to the conflicting tensions that radiates throughout the play – from the two sides of the tablets to the sudden emotional breakdowns of the characters. In addition, these props help to emphasize and further dramatize the stories that are so heavily dependent on drama and an emotional reaction.

            The carefully planned and performed presentation of “In Conflict” dazzles as its various discordant pieces come together to make a harmonious work full of beauty and a profound understanding of the human spirit. In its retelling of the stories of several Iraqi war veterans, the play gives a voice to those who have bravely fought for our country. It tells of their victories, their fears, their losses, their uncertainties – weaving an exquisite tapestry of stories.

http://theater2.nytimes.com/2008/09/25/theater/reviews/25conf.html

           Based on the book by Yvonne Latty, In Conflict, presented on September 25, 2008 at the Barrow Street Theater, recounts the story of war veterans who served in Iraq.

           Unlike other documentaries based on war veterans’ experiences, In Conflict neither preaches anti-war, nor advocates being a war hawk. Instead, Latty includes the stories of all types of veterans: amputee, single, gay, female, AWOL, married, middle-aged, black, straight, doctor, war monger. When asked about her selection of veterans, Latty explained how she strived to create a balance, and refrained from modifying the interviewee’s words when writing her book. Perhaps the strongest aspect of the play is its ability to connect with the audience. We hear the raw, ugly, painful, and sometimes nauseating words and experiences of real soldiers. While veterans like Ty Simmons “bleed red, white, and blue,” others like Darryl Anderson “went AWOL and moved to Canada.” Regardless of the story we are envisioning, and despite the comic-relief and hints of sarcasm, In Conflict displays the vivid, shocking, and unnerving stories of Iraq War veterans.

           No big names pop out when looking at the list of cast. Actually, there is no “star power” in the show; the entire cast is compromised of recent graduates and current students of Temple University. In fact, for some of the cast members like Damon Williams (Herold Noel, Jamel Daniels), this is their first major role. Despite their lack of experience, each actor completely encompasses the attitude, accent, and demeanor of the veteran they are portraying. The authenticity of each actor is so remarkable and engaging, it doesn’t feel like you are watching a documentary, rather you are an onlooker observing a firsthand account. This dramatic atmosphere is accomplished by the creative setting led by Andrew Laine, dominated by swinging and turning panels. In one instance, the panels are aligned depicting the map of Iraq, while in the next scene they contain an image of Uncle Sam as the soldiers all lie down on the floor covered by American flags, representing caskets. The lighting design led by J. Dominic Chacon, and sound design led by Christopher Capello and Paul Winnick, immensely contributes to the mood and aura of the play. One of the many gut wrenching moments occurs when Jamel Daniels speaks about seeing a new-born baby lying in the middle of the road. In a split second, two roaming tanks mindlessly run over the baby, crushing and killing it. In the background we hear the ringing cry of a baby, and immediately envision the devastating story.

           The calamitous stories shared throughout In Conflict succeed in giving you goose bumps, and making you squirm and jittery within your seat. Yvonne Latty and director Douglas C. Wager present the utmost support for the troops – bringing to light their voices, their true voices.

The play “In Conflict” was aptly titled. There were real-life stories and different opinions on the war in Iraq. It was very liberating to hear both sides of the story, both anti-war and pro-war stances. Actually, the play went beyond showing both sides. It showed the opinions of women, men, negative thinking, positive thinking, immigrant, Caucasian, Hispanic, African American, and Native American soldiers. The small theatre was very cozy and made it seem like the audience itself was present at each interview. My favorite part of the night was an interview with a Russian immigrant soldier who served the audience cookies during teatime. The cookies were authentically Russian and delicious, and it was an unexpected treat to actually be able to have food and drink in a theatre for a change, even if it was just to set the mood.

The emotion projected by each performer filled the room with his or her sincere convictions and beliefs. Each character’s internal struggles were made pristinely apparent. The ambiance of the play was one of war and its after effect on the people present in Iraq. The props of beer and liquor bottles were very realistic for a military setting, as well as were the camouflage outfits and guns held by the actors. There were large panels lit up by American Flags and Uncle Sam’s face that the soldiers almost danced around on stage, marching in good rhythm. The stagecraft was aesthetically pleasing and the synchronization of large lit panels turning cannot be that easy to delegate. The production was anything but ordinary and the smoothness of the acting and other logistics blew me away. The content of the play was well chosen and unbiased. Seeing “In Conflict” is a must for anyone interested in war, as well as for every American.

About this illustration: http://graphics.boston.com/bonzai-fba/Globe_Graphic/2005/12/27/1135745279_1689.gif

With a traditionally American backdrop consisting of Uncle Sam and colored red, white, and blue, the cast of In Conflict makes its way to the stage. The audience is immediately placed in a military setting by the initial exercises practiced by the actors and then introduced to Ty Simmons, played by Tom Rader. It is from this point that the Temple University actors confront a major issue on the small stage of the Barrow Street Theatre.

As the play is based on a collection of true stories of American soldiers in Iraq, it progresses to include various events. Almost all of these events prove to be traumatic and life-altering, some of which include soldiers losing body parts, witness accounts of Iraqis civilians being mistreated, and loss of identity. This is mainly due to author Yvonne Latty’s decision to interview a diverse population that was negatively impacted by the effects of the Iraqi war. Although each character is guaranteed to impress on your heart, the most notable include Stan Demidoff, Herald Noel, and of course, Joy Notoma. What makes these characters so memorable is their individual portrayals in the play; Demidoff being the kind Russian immigrant who passes out cookies, Noel being the soldier scarred to the point of alcoholism and devastation, and Notoma being the super perky and, dare I say, annoying nurse.

Although there might have been other flaws (e.g. shortage of actors, not enough props) in In Conflict, I mainly had one concern. Tracy Ringo, the actor who plays Joy Notoma, gives a confusing performance; the whole time she is reciting her lines the audience wonders if her extremely cheerful personality is a result of bad acting or if her attitude actually fits her character. Given that each actor/actress had to learn his/her character through a script and a taped interview, my best guess would be that Ringo didn’t genuinely arrange her performance.

At the end of the play, however, the audience is given a positive impression of American soldiers. The painful scenes and emotions of war are exposed to the audience in order to help it better understand the positions of not just American soldiers, but soldiers everywhere. In addition, Ty Simmons outrightly states that even though some people (including soldiers themselves) may disagree with war, that gives us no right to disrespect men and women who are fighting for their lives and country. The stories of the featured American soldiers promise to linger in your mind for years to come, making In Conflict a powerful, although small, production.